Sunday, 1 May 2011

Throw a sickie – A worsening conundrum

There certainly are many important issues on the HR
Professionals’ agenda requiring a great deal of attention, efforts and
resources to be properly addressed; amongst these the phenomenon of fictitious
sickness is regrettably destined to stay high at the top. “Throw a sickie” is
an expression used to indicate that an employee will not go to work on a given
day on account of being unwell; indeed this expression is used when the person
is not actually ill, but rather feigns illness.

The vast majority of employers know from experience
that this undesirable employee “practice” does produce detrimental effects both
from the financial and organizational point of view. Notwithstanding, for
different reasons, organizations have habitually found it rather difficult tackling
and stemming the problem, and latest research shows that the magnitude of the phenomenon
is indeed growing, rather than declining.

The findings of an investigation conducted by the
Confederation of British Industry (CBI, 2010), revealed that by reason of the
“throw a sickie” phenomenon in 2009 went wasted in the UK 27 million working
days, which accounted for an estimated total loss of £17 billion. A similar research
(PwC, 2011) showed that this cost reached in 2010 a staggering £32 billion. The
investigation, which was administered to the employees of 2,000 companies
worldwide, revealed that UK’s workers have an average 10 days “unscheduled
absence” from work every year, nearly the double figure of their American
counterpart, who recorded an average rate of 5.5 days a year. The UK data, albeit
similar to that recorded in Western Europe countries where the average absence
rate reached 9.7 days a year, appears to be even more alarming whether compared
with the Asia-Pacific score, where a 4.5 average rate was recorded.

Absenteeism is a conundrum British, but clearly not
only British, businesses need to devote particular attention to and do whatever
they can to solve. Illness represents the most recurring cause for employee
absenteeism but more often than not defining the boundaries between sickness
and sickie proves to be a very tricky feat to perform. Investigating and
identifying the real causes behind absenteeism assume hence a greater
importance and represent necessary activities for putting employers in a
position to effectively and properly tackle the issue.

As suggested by Phelps (2011), dissatisfaction with
one’s job can actually cause an individual feeling unwell and hamper his/her capability
and willingness to return to work as early as possible when actually ill. A relatively
recent survey carried out by the Department for Work and Pension (DWP), the “General
practitioners' attitudes towards patients' health and work” report, revealed
that 61 percent of GPs “somewhat or completely” agreed that the fit note had
helped them discussing with patients their return to work (the notes issued by
GPs provide employers information about the tasks and activities these can
perform returning to work in order to favour and speed their return up). The study
also revealed that 70 percent of the surveyed GPs consider fit notes effective
to plan a phased return to work of their patients, whereas nearly the entire
panel, that is to say 99 percent, agreed on the beneficial effects of work for
individual health.

The positive impact on individual health and well-being of having a job
is also confirmed by the findings of a recent investigation conducted by Comres
on behalf of the insurance company Legal and General, which revealed that
Britain’s family doctors, albeit with a different frequency, regularly see the
individuals who have been dismissed by their employer.

Commenting on the PwC investigation findings Phelps contended
that it is hence untrue that “the US culture of long hours and short holidays”
necessarily implies higher absenteeism rates. It may be rather argued that it is
possibly by virtue of their higher level of engagement and commitment that US
employees are better able to counterbalance and cope with stress and pressure
in the workplace.

It can be indeed identified a number of reasons why American
and Asian workers are in general more incline to go the extra mile; amongst these
flexible labour laws play indeed a remarkable role. Individuals are in fact
well aware that commitment is, first of all, important as a means to secure
their job stability. Yet, American organizations are typically more active and
more generous than British firms when planning resources to improve their
workforce well-being.

The Comres study revealed that British businesses actually
struggle to effectively and properly manage illness and absence due to illness in
the workplace. Buckley (2011) maintains that many organizations lack the
specialist knowledge and do not deploy the required resources to rehabilitate employees
returning to work after absence due to illness-related reasons, whereas these
should put in place what it takes to provide a bespoke support to make employee
return to work from illness smoother and easier.

Absenteeism can be in many respects regarded as the
antonym of engagement. Phelps contends to this respect that good absence policies,
capable to deter unscheduled absences, whereas protecting employees absent by
reason of genuine illness, can effectually help. Although this view is
absolutely supportable in that specific sickness policies enable employers to
make clear, since the very beginning, the importance these attach to the
phenomenon, things may prove not to be as straightforward as expected in
practice.

Organizations habitually have good and potentially
effective policies on paper; the real problem is that these policies are not consistently
implemented in practice. In this instance, it is not indeed a matter of an undesirable
“knowing - doing gap”, in most cases the gap is in fact intentional. Employers find
it difficult dealing with this conundrum fearing that taking appropriate action
may make a negative impact on employee relations and produce disastrous effects
on staff motivation, engagement and morale. This approach is typically more
spread across public sector organizations, which possibly helps to explain why the
employers of this sector traditionally record the highest absence levels.

The findings of the PwC investigation also revealed the
existence of remarkable differences according to the different sectors of
industry. With 7.6 days a year, for instance, technology sector employers recorded
the lowest absence rate, followed by banking and finance with an average 7.8
days a year. In contrast, retail and leisure with an average 11.5 days a year and
public sector employers with the average score of 12.2 recorded the highest
absence rates.

The difficulties encountered by organizations in effectively
and properly dealing with this conundrum can be partly comprehended;
nonetheless, to avert encouraging this employee undesirable behaviour, it is
necessary for employers to take firm, immediate action. Whether the only employer
reaction to this conduct would just be to turn the blind eye, individuals may
think that their employer is somewhat of supporting or, if anything, not
condemning this behaviour. Whether this should be the message received by
individuals, the consequences would be catastrophic. Feigning illness would no
longer be seen by individuals as a “don’t” but rather as a “do”, people who are
not used to throw a sickie might feel inspired and decide to jump on the “throw
a sickie bandwagon”, too. Unscheduled absence would thus seriously risk
completely spinning out of the employer control.

The circumstance that good policies are in place on
paper and that these are not consistently implemented in practice can just produce
a magnified negative impact. Employees are encouraged to assume that their employer
does not really attach any importance to unscheduled absences and fictitious
sickness: policies are a nice to have, but nobody actually cares. It cannot be
indeed considered appropriate not having any absence policy in place either;
albeit in this instance employees would, if anything, find it difficult understanding
“beyond reasonable doubt” how their employer regards the issue and intends to
deal with it. In both cases, the major risks employers run is that with the
passing of time the throw a sickie practice may become part of an organization
culture, making it much harder, whether not impossible, to revert the trend at
any given time in the future.

Recent studies regrettably show that the throw a
sickie worsening trend is already underway; employers are strongly advised to
carefully think over the way they currently deal and would rather prefer to
deal with the phenomenon. What matters the most is that, irrespective of their
final decision, the approach these decide to adopt is fruit of their precise
choice and not of inertia. The problem is there already, it is hence time for employers
to learn how to effectually tackle and overcome it.